F150 Ecoboost Forum banner

21 - 25 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,803 Posts
PPS: I sure do miss the #air/min PID/DMR. Doesn't exist for the Config for my current strategy. If you can AVOID getting your truck re-programmed for the new tranny strategy (and haven't had any issues) do it. Or at least wait a bit longer so SCT can get more pids for the configs for those strategies.

I can't even merge a pid from a different config into my valid config. Livelink will do it and transfer it to the Device. But my Livewire won't see it (anymore).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,086 Posts
I would be surprised if you could hit 50#/min with GT's at your altitude. I was pushing them at 4000ft and saw a peak of 44.75. Same set up made 52#/min at sea level.
That seems a little on the low side for FR to be claiming a 15 lb increase with the GT's. The stock turbos, even without exceeding speed limits, are supposed to be able to flow 46 lbs at sea level as long as the IAT's arnt stupid.

I wonder if your Airflow numbers are whacky cause of all the stuff you have done to the truck. I imagine once you start changing the VE the PCM is no longer tracking the same.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
That seems a little on the low side for FR to be claiming a 15 lb increase with the GT's. The stock turbos, even without exceeding speed limits, are supposed to be able to flow 46 lbs at sea level as long as the IAT's arnt stupid.

I wonder if your Airflow numbers are whacky cause of all the stuff you have done to the truck. I imagine once you start changing the VE the PCM is no longer tracking the same.
Certainly is possible that my Airflow numbers are off, so who knows. My Dyno numbers though, would show that the airflow isn't too far off. Stock Turbos at sea level were around 42-43#/min in my logs. I'm sure they could have been pushed a bit further, but I wasn't willing to do with the timing is was seeing. GT's at the same PSI levels and Sea Level were 52#/min, that's a real increase, when you take into consideration the piping too and from the turbos. I dropped back to 45#/min with the GT's at 4000ft, so I know the thinner air does impact them. Given the WGDC, I myself and @Boostking weren't really willing to push them past 18.5psi.

I hope you give them a shot and post up results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,086 Posts
Certainly is possible that my Airflow numbers are off, so who knows. My Dyno numbers though, would show that the airflow isn't too far off. Stock Turbos at sea level were around 42-43#/min in my logs. I'm sure they could have been pushed a bit further, but I wasn't willing to do with the timing is was seeing. GT's at the same PSI levels and Sea Level were 52#/min, that's a real increase, when you take into consideration the piping too and from the turbos. I dropped back to 45#/min with the GT's at 4000ft, so I know the thinner air does impact them. Given the WGDC, I myself and @Boostking weren't really willing to push them past 18.5psi.

I hope you give them a shot and post up results.
Might depend on the tuning, it could just be cutting back to maintain the same PR/corrected mass flow from your sea level numbers.

My BCB tune tries to incinerate my turbos at this elevation by running the WGDC at 100% above 4500 rpm, while all of my other tunes casually stop at 36-37lbs and 50% WGDC. In cool weather my stock tune flows 36 lbs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Might depend on the tuning, it could just be cutting back to maintain the same PR/corrected mass flow from your sea level numbers.

My BCB tune tries to incinerate my turbos at this elevation by running the WGDC at 100% above 4500 rpm, while all of my other tunes casually stop at 36-37lbs and 50% WGDC. In cool weather my stock tune flows 36 lbs.
I think that is likely the case. Brett and I wouldn't push past 70% WGDC, just working the turbos too hard.
 
21 - 25 of 25 Posts
Top